Concurrent validity measures whether the instrument allows for distinctions to be made between groups that should be separately identifiable. Convergent validity asks whether responses to items in the instrument which are conceptually related move in similar ways relative to each other. And divergent validity measures whether operationalized variables in the instrument are separately identifiable from other, unrelated concepts. The threats to construct validity include not clearly defining variables operationally before instrument construction, using a too-narrow concept for measurement or a too-narrow treatment for measurement that does not reflect the full nature of the concepts measured, improperly measuring the effects of multiple treatments related to the variable in ways that do not account for interaction of other variables, failure to account for the effects of such considerations as subject apprehension or testing effects on subject responses, and experimenter bias. The researcher can control for these threats by linking the theoretical rationale for measurement with the actual measurements, conducting multivariate methodological treatments to ensure that variables moved in the expected directions and with the appropriate similar variables, and through pattern matching to show how variables relate to one another, relevant to expectations. Internal validity consists of an assessment of whether the instrument shows proper causal relationships between variables. Creswell (2009) argues that there are a number of different types of concerns related to internal validity, consisting of such factors as confounding (or spurious) relationships, selection bias or maturation, test-retest effects, instrument changes,...
The idea here is that when control groups are selected, multiple tests are conducted, or instruments are tweaked, the possibility for changes in responses complicates the likelihood that the research design will be shown valid. Researchers can control for internal validity by conducting research according to accepted limits and methods, conducting appropriate statistical procedures to measure and remove bias and related errors, and reporting methodology with transparency.
Tenure The Wood and De Jarlais study of 2006 set out to accomplish three objectives. Those three objectives as stated by the study were to: (1) to provide assurance to the University and its constituents that professional resources and particular areas of expertise are being used to the best advantage; (2) to provide for the systematic recognition of excellence and develop incentives for superior performance; and (3) to provide means for
Through a bevy of research articles and scholarly journal research pieces, the authors of the present survey instrument have established their credentials by producing an exhaustive and multi-dimensional discussion on a highly-charged issue. Their qualifications are therefore preceded by an established status as experts in the field and as unbiased sources for discourse. It is thus that the survey instrument produced here is used to measure responses in two participating
" (Zemsky, 1) Null Hypothesis The null hypothesis of the research endeavor is that online professors will report no perceptible connection between post-tenure review and job performance. Alternate Hypothesis The alternate hypothesis of the research endeavor is that online professors will report that post-tenure review improves job performance. Nature of the Study Significance of the Study The significance of the proposed research is based in the need for greater study of online instruction in higher education with
In taking the approach that improvement in these areas can be achieved by establishing some form of post-tenure review, institutions are sending the signal that the blame for school-wide failures falls upon the teachers. A failure on the part of the institution to take this responsibility and the eroding of its confidence in its teachers promotes a deeply unhealthy context for academic freedom or creativity. This is to say that
Corporate Governance at Samsung Group 'Corporate governance' refers to a corporation's control, supervision methods and processes, and management accountability. Corporate Governance, worldwide, doesn't merely cover legal controls set by local companies, or by national legislations, or by common international regulations; its scope is much broader, going beyond legal aspects to cover accountability as well, with regard to both legal restraint, and best practice norms and self-regulation (Australian Insitute of Business, 2014). In
According to these authorities, "Workplace stressors often have detrimental effects on faculty job satisfaction and may lead to decisions to leave the institution or to leave higher education entirely. Although some degree of turnover is inevitable and perhaps desirable, high rates of faculty turnover can be costly to the reputation of an institution and to the quality of instruction" (p. 776). In many cases, the very faculty members that
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now